Follow us on social

Mohammad_bin_salman_in_washington_-_2018_26083237057

Saudi bodyguards have been training in the U.S. since Obama. Why?

Revelations that Khashoggi's killers were trained by a private security contractor in the States have raised some uncomfortable questions.

Analysis | Middle East

Four of the 15 Saudis involved in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi received training in the United States, according to the New York Times. The story highlights the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, the critique of which has simmered following Khashoggi’s grisly murder and dismemberment in October 2018. 

Tier 1 Group, the security company that conducted the training of the four Saudi men, has stressed that the instruction they received had no relation to the acts of brutal violence they carried out against Khashoggi. Instead, the training was defensive in nature, intended to “counter an attack” ostensibly against a high profile individual. This reiterates the link to Mohamed bin Salman, as members of MBS’ personal protection squad carried out the killing, although the Saudis continue to deny the Crown Prince’s responsibility in ordering the murder.

Yet the revelation also underscores the fact that the problems underpinning the U.S.-Saudi relationship predate the Trump White House, as well as Mohammed bin Salman’s tenure as crown prince. The four Saudis were trained in 2017, but two also received training between 2014 and 2015, while Obama was president, and King Abdullah was still on the Saudi throne. The question emerges as to why Saudi operatives receive training in the United States at all?

The military partnership between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia reflects the countries’ 75-year-long relationship. Historically, Washington had to overcome the mismatch between Saudi policy and values that the United States claimed to uphold — democracy, individual liberty, gender equality, freedom of expression — because of American dependence on Saudi oil. Yet the United States surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest exporter of oil in 2019; instead the majority of Saudi fossil fuels now travel eastwards to Asian markets. Although the global economy remains dependent on fossil fuels, U.S. willingness to ignore Saudi abuses and crimes can no longer be explained by America’s addiction to Saudi oil.

Instead, it is the American military industrial complex that remains dependent on Saudi Arabia as a wealthy and valued customer. Although the Trump administration increased the sale of U.S. weapons by 23 percent, many of them to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration sold vast quantities of weapons to the Saudis as well. The Biden administration, after initially committing to end the sale of offensive weapons that could be used to attack Yemen, has allowed certain sales to proceed.

At the time of Khashoggi’s murder, Congress denounced the Trump administration’s close partnership with the Saudis, even passing an historic War Powers Resolution, which Trump vetoed. Yet since Biden’s ascension to power, perhaps because Biden himself initially signaled that he would be tough on the Saudis, critique of the relationship has been more muted. Members needn't have worried: the Biden administration also has deep ties to the defense industry.

As long as the United States merely pays lip service to the preservation of human rights, or only points out abuses by U.S. adversaries while ignoring the crimes of U.S. partners, Biden's efforts to restore America's moral authority will fail. The Biden administration should suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and drastically reduce its military partnership with the House of Saud. Until that occurs, Americans should prepare for more embarrassing revelations about the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.


Then-Defense Secretary James N. Mattis meets with Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., Mar. 22, 2018. (DoD photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kathryn E. Holm)
Analysis | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.